• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Worst reviews EVER

AppleBlade

Member
Armada said:
Ugh . . . I hate people who deny that the Wii's pointer is quicker and more accurate then manually moving a cross-hair over the screen with an analog stick. That RE4 review almost makes me think they hardly played the game at all. Heck, this game hardly has any learning curve with the controls, the game was easier for me right from the get go (I had played the GC version previously).
 

morningbus

Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
Regulus Tera said:
What's the story behind the Gaming in the Clinton Years reviews? Did they really air during the nineties in TV? What was the name of the show? Or is Navigatr mocking something somewhere?

From the Youtube User page:

The opinions expressed in "Gaming in the Clinton Years" (ancient retro PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Nintendo 64, Super Nintendo, and Dreamcast video game reviews and walkthroughs from the years of the William Jefferson Clinton administration) are those of the original 90's writers and not the narrator or NAVGTR Corp., which was incorporated in 2001. Acquired "as-is" to digitally preserve the images therein (narration is original to the time and not the opinion of the narrator, editors, directors, or producers), these videos pre-date and thus are unrelated to the NAViGaTR Awards, for which the ubiquitous narrator does not and never did determine (or vote upon) the outcome/recipients.

I don't know. I really don't understand what they're getting at with any of that.
 
MrVargas said:
Ugh . . . I hate people who deny that the Wii's pointer is quicker and more accurate then manually moving a cross-hair over the screen with an analog stick. That RE4 review almost makes me think they hardly played the game at all. Heck, this game hardly has any learning curve with the controls, the game was easier for me right from the get go (I had played the GC version previously).

Yes, that review was puzzling, especially coming from that particular source. Eurogamer is usually very much in line with my own preferences, but this review was simply plain wrong from my point of view.
 

PhatSaqs

Banned
segarr said:
The guy who gave ME a bad review without knowing it was an RPG and that you could give your character points for each level.

That was the Dean Takahashi (of the Xbox insider books fame) review of Mass Effect, where he was unaware that in an RPG you level up. The review itself seems to be removed.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
vireland said:
I love the part where Hsu is rambles about knowing how the story will end and talks about how this and that took place on EARTH.

Buuut, he didn't see the real twist coming - that in Gears you're actually the BAD GUYS who invaded the Locust's planet - at all. One of my favorite game twists of the 21st century.

Cliffy B and crew rocked the house - twice in a row, and schooled Resistance on in-game narrative done right.

And yes, it was a crap review.

Maybe I played a defective copy of the games over and over again but I don't actually remember any of that.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/nights/index.html

NiGHTS: into dreams for the Saturn by Gamespot.

It was so bad they pulled the review off their website in 2002 so now it looks like they never reviewed it in the first place.

They have it something in the 4's. The reviewers description of the gameplay basically proved that he had no idea how to play the game nor did he get very far into it.
 
There used to be a horrible review for Legend of the Mystical Ninja on IGN, but it's been swaped for a different one now. The original panned the game for being too Japanese and complained that he couldn't figure out how to get out of the first room because the doors in the game dont have doorknobs. Pretty stupid for a game that takes place in ancient Japan (with robots).
 

Sixfortyfive

He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
Forkball said:
Tim Rogers is awful. The fact that someone used money to pay him for his thoughts on video games instead of giving it to starving children should be considered a crime against humanity.
Tim Rogers doesn't write "reviews." I'm not sure what you call them, but I've found his stuff to be entertaining once in a while.

My addition to the pile.
 
glaurung said:
1UP review of Bladestorm.

Initially they posted it with screenshots from Dynasty Warriors.
Are you trying to say Bladestorm deserved a better score, because I played that demo and.......my God.
 

vireland

Member
StoOgE said:
Maybe I played a defective copy of the games over and over again but I don't actually remember any of that.

It's not "in your face", but there a number of clues placed in both games. The first place I saw it spelled out in black and white was in a guide.

I've since heard it alluded to or talked about in at least one interview. It's a GREAT twist. Really messes with your head in a great way.
 
StoOgE said:
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/nights/index.html

NiGHTS: into dreams for the Saturn by Gamespot.

It was so bad they pulled the review off their website in 2002 so now it looks like they never reviewed it in the first place.

They have it something in the 4's. The reviewers description of the gameplay basically proved that he had no idea how to play the game nor did he get very far into it.
Say, that reminds me of another game.

Sonic_unleashed_boxart.jpg
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
EschatonDX said:
No 8.8 yet?

C'mon GAF, you can do better than that!

The score didn't bother me, it was the actual content of the review. Quite a few inconsistencies and contradictions.
 
Guys, guys, guys.. please.

IGN's review of SSX3. I give you:
Perhaps the load times are normal, like 15-30 seconds, but I don't care. And I don't because most of them are genuinely short, while the long ones give me something to look at while waiting. A simple little scene of snow passes across the screen, while the informational load screen tells me exactly how fast the data is being loaded. The effect is that I feel like something is happening even though I'm doing nothing. Nice trick!

http://www.ps2.ign.com/articles/455/455424p5.html

And in terms of best review, we should all be thankful for the Old Man Murray commentary on Return to Castle Wolfenstein:
Now, I'm not a big man. In fact, I'm a small man attached to a big man's penis. But small as I am, even I'm not afraid of Rob Zombie. I guess someone over at Gray Matter confused being dirty with being scary. Believe me, dreadlocks and a sleestack helmet don't make you the Predator.

http://www.oldmanmurray.com/news/news.html

God bless you, Erik and Chet, and to a lesser extent, the Crate. Your services to gamerdom will never be forgotten. That people listen to and watch Zero Punctuation, and think that he is highest standard of inward-looking self-loathing gamer humour makes me cry. Tears of chicken.

Old Man Murray's greatest line:

People we trust have told us that Gunman Chronicles gets much better as it goes along. If you're a fan of games that get better towards the end, check it out!

http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/56.html

Oh God, I'm still laughing at this eight years later.
 

glaurung

Member
Blu_LED said:
Are you trying to say Bladestorm deserved a better score, because I played that demo and.......my God.

No, by all means no. The demo was crap though and the game is pretty wonky in its own way.

It's just that the review itself felt completely phoned in and I cannot tolerate things that are done unprofessionally.
 
StoOgE said:
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/nights/index.html

NiGHTS: into dreams for the Saturn by Gamespot.

It was so bad they pulled the review off their website in 2002 so now it looks like they never reviewed it in the first place.

They have it something in the 4's. The reviewers description of the gameplay basically proved that he had no idea how to play the game nor did he get very far into it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020203...espot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2532885,00.html
:lol
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
morningbus said:
Navigatr's Toy Story 2 Review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4i6QoWONLQ

The reviewer actually sounds pretty pissed that Disney didn't use "Silicon Graphics Computers," failed to create another Donkey Kong Country, and postulates that this is somehow the Sega Genesis' fault.

I do love these reviews, though.

Okay, yeah, this is the worst video game review ever.
 
Timedog said:
Okay, yeah, this is the worst video game review ever.
I like how he goes on a tangent about the Street Fighter rip-off action figures, and also complains about there not being a Pocahontas game. What would you do in a Pocahontas game?

Boss fight: Negotiate peacefully with the white settlers!
 
I saw a 5 minute review on Aussie TV with three kids playing Sonic Unleashed on 360. I don't know how much they played the game, but all the footage appeared to be from the demo level and the kids all gave the game 10/10.

All three of them. I don't know how old they were but they were over 10. I can't remember what channel I saw it on and can't find the clip on youtube, anyone got any ideas to help me narrow my search.

Oh and that RE4 Wii review made me angry. A lot of other people too, check the comments for hate.
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Aaron Strife said:
I like how he goes on a tangent about the Street Fighter rip-off action figures, and also complains about there not being a Pocahontas game. What would you do in a Pocahontas game?

Boss fight: Negotiate peacefully with the white settlers!

Yeah the street fighter rip off action figures thing sealed the deal.
 
I'm reading through that Godhand review... WHO THE FUCK TYPES LIKE THIS?

It's somewhat apparent that God Hand was meant to be a joke on many levels, much as a film director might intentionally make a B-movie. The game practically encourages button mashing, enemies are extremely generic, the level layout is very uninspired, the dialog and jokes are poorly written and delivered, and most of all, much of the control and gameplay mechanics are so old-school it hurts.

One of the only interesting aspects of the game is its combat system, largely in part due to the fact that you're able to customize exactly which moves you want in your combo string. While you only have one main combo chain, you're able to fit in other moves that you've assigned to the face buttons and create attack chains on the fly. Some moves have special attributes, like juggling an opponent, tossing them away or breaking a block...

But that's about as far as the fun of combat goes. Beyond this, it's an extremely tedious brawler where you'll generally mash a button or two until an enemy is dead. There are a few tactics of sorts mixed in, like choosing the best times to use a slower but more powerful move, but in large part you'll be mashing buttons until everyone is finished.

The God Hand aspect of the game refers to Gene's arm, which you can unleash when powered up and generally kick the hell out of everything for a short while. This really is little more than a power-up attack that you'll find in most any other combat-heavy game around and doesn't save the game in the least since all it does is strengthen your attacks for a handful of seconds.

It's like I'm reading a fucking seventh grader give a report on the game.
 

Kritz

Banned
One of the worst recent reviews I've witnessed has been GameTrailer's Left 4 Dead review.

Apparently the game needs a rocket launcher.
 

May16

Member
http://ds.ign.com/articles/883/883264p1.html
IGN's FF Tactics A2 review.

One of its supposed selling points? "OMG guys you can EQUIP ARMOR!"
Considering the many game mechanics gives you an idea of just how deep an experience is on offer: you can recruit new clan members, you can assign everyone a job, everyone's equipped items grant them special abilities, you earn materials in battle that can be traded at the bazaar in exchange for more powerful items, you can take on clan quests to specifically improve your group's abilities, an "opportunity turn" unlocks rare attacks… The list goes on and on.
It's like this Daemon Hatfield guy is blissfully unaware that these concepts are not new. It's written as if this is the first TRPG ever, and at times, sounds like he didn't even really play it so much as just read a list of features and paraphrased.
 
It doesn't seem to be on the internet anymore, but Gamespot posted a negative review(something like 4.5) of Dragon Quest VII very shortly after its Japanese release. Had the reviewer actually gone without sleep to finish this 100+ hour game so quickly? The text of the review only described aspects from the first few hours of the game, up to the first island with enemies, and mostly spoke in generalities about how archaic the game was. IIRC, nowhere was mentioned the job system or even the extreme length.

Does anyone else remember this review?
 
IGN's review of Vampire Rain (on 360, at least) is awful. The reviewer didn't even try to hide the fact that he didn't get past the second or third level, and as a result the review is full of factual inaccuracies.
 

McBacon

SHOOTY McRAD DICK
BrokenSymmetry said:
That was the Dean Takahashi (of the Xbox insider books fame) review of Mass Effect, where he was unaware that in an RPG you level up. The review itself seems to be removed.

Here it is.

I’ve been a been anticipating Mass Effect ever since I saw the first demo of the game in Amsterdam at the X05 unveiling of the Xbox 360’s first slate of games. This was the first next-generation game that I saw with the highest of ambitions: crossing the uncanny valley. The valley is the familiar problem of computer-generated images. The closer they approach reality, the more disturbing the images are, particularly human faces. By trying to do good human facial animation, the developers at BioWare endeavoured to make games as emotionally interesting and visually appealing as movies. As such, this game promised a big leap forward in cinematic storytelling and game play.

It delivered on the first, but not on the second. While the conversational system and facial animation is perhaps the best I’ve ever seen in a video game, the game play is maddeningly flawed. Call it Mass Defect.

I know my criticism will annoy a lot of fans out there. It will no doubt anger all of those who poured a lot of work into this high-profile game, but I consider it my job as a critic to call it as I see it. Call me picky. But just as this game gave me some of the finest experiences I’ve ever seen, it also let me down.

I saw several demos of the game over the course of its long development. The expectations built to unreasonable levels. I participated in that to some degree. I interviewed lead designer Casey Hudson when the game debuted as an exclusive on the Xbox 360 in November. I was duly impressed with everything that I saw in the demos. But I never got my hands on the actual game until it arrived. And the final product leaves me disappointed.

Mass Effect is a big game. You can play it in a non-linear way and that makes you feel like you are truly exploring a galaxy, Captain Kirk style. It’s an open world, or galaxy if you prefer, where you can pretty much travel to the planet of your choosing. The game designers direct your attention by providing you with missions that take you to the key intersections of the game’s story lines. When you reach those points, the game moves into a movie-like scene where the characters talk to each other. The camera closes in on the faces; the developers aren’t afraid of showing you moving lips and synchronized speech, as they are in many of the games with lesser graphics.

For those who haven’t played it, there are actually two parts to this game. One is a conversation system with extremely realistic modeling of characters and their facial features. When you come to a cinematic moment, you watch the characters reveal more of the story.

When it comes to a branching point, three or more lines of conversation appear as text on the screen. You can scroll through the lines and pick the tone and message of what you want to say. The character then speaks the appropriate lines. Most of the time, the character does not mimic the text on the screen. Rather, you pick the subtext, and the character delivers the message.

You can watch the smirk, a bare hint of a smile, and interpret that as a positive reaction to your line of questioning. The female soldier Ashley gives such a barely perceptible lip curl to Commander Shepard, offering a clue to the gamer that Ashley might welcome further inquiries from the commander. You can get some nuance out of the characters.

The cool part of the game — and why it took so long to make — is that you can customize your character at the beginning of the game and then you run through all of those cinematic scenes with your character in the middle of them. You can also go on missions and choose different companions to accompany you. The cinematic scenes change to match those characters.

As Casey Hudson told me, there are more than 20,000 lines of dialogue available in this part of the game. That’s enough for 20 movies, though you won’t encounter all of those lines in a straight play-through of the game, as many of the lines cover alternate stories.

I think the long development cycle was actually part of its problem. BioWare, the Canadian developer recently bought by EA, spent more than 3.5 years working on the game. The team rolled off the development of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic role-playing game for the original Xbox. That 2003 game had an original storyline with deep dialogue interspersed with player-controlled third-person sword play and combat. The team adopted some of the same style of that game, another flaw, in my opinion. I think the Mass Effect guys were stuck in the game play of 2003 and they never emerged with superior game play in 2007. I mean, come on! This is the year of Halo 3. If they had game play that resembled anything close to a tenth of the game play of Halo 3, this would have been the game of the year. But it’s not even close.

While the KOTOR game play was more primitive and graphically average, the goal with Mass Effect was far more ambitious. The team tried to create realistic human and alien faces, animated by crisp dialogue. It also tried to create more interesting first-person shooter style combat and to wrap all of this inside a riveting story set in an original sci-fi universe. You can equip your soldiers with all sorts of weapon types. The storyline is truly something that I can see lasting over several games.

But here’s where it breaks down. The tactical play is horrendous. That wasn’t so evident on the early Eden Prime level, but once you’re off in the missions to other planets, it becomes overwhelmingly bad. You feel like you’re fighting with extremely incapable soldiers.

You never run out of ammo. But you’re always shooting these solid mass bullets at the enemy. Every guns sounds and fires and behaves the same, whether it’s a shotgun or an assault rifle. Stupid. Then, when you’re shooting at a target, an orange box appears as the one and only place on that target where you can actually hit them with a mass bullet. That’s not even close to realistic, and counts as stupid No. 2. Then you can’t even tell if you’ve hit your target because your target just keeps coming at you or does not even flinch upon impact, whether their shields are up or down. That’s stupid no. 3. You get a red bar that shows exactly how many times you have to shoot the enemy in order to take them down, no matter whether you’re getting in the equivalent of head shots or toe shots. The grenades are equally stupid. They fly in straight lines like hockey pucks on ice until they hit something. That something will often keep running right at you and then blow you up.

This feels like you’re playing a game from the 1930s. And yes, I know they didn’t have video games in the 1930s. Let me recount a scene deep into the game on the planet Feros. Ignore the fact that I have had to endure countless stupid firefights to get to this point in the game. I’ve done my time, so to speak, to get to this point.

At this point in the game, as the player, you’re trying to take out this big plant-thing called a Thorian. It vomits or excretes an “Asari clone” soldier, who bickers with you and fights you no matter what you say to it. I had a couple of capable companions with me, a reptile-like Wrex and more cerebral alien named Garrus. They are tough fighters. But the Asari takes them out with ease in the extremely confined fighting space. It’s as if the only purpose they serve is to be cannon fodder. (What, they’re dead? Don’t worry. It’s not an emotional scene because they always come back from the dead if you complete the battle scene and move on to the next one.)

With a shotgun or an assault rifle, it takes me around 15 shots to take out the Asari, and then you have to take out the Thorian Creepers who come at you in waves afterward. The only way you can really get these many hits on them is to shoot them when they aren’t looking. And yes, that happens quite often if they are facing the cannon fodder. These Thorian Creeper guys are zombies who actually vomit at you. I was already almost out of grenades and health by the time they came at me. And then they make the guns so that they overheat — yep — about every 14 shots. You doing the math? So you have to shoot in a reserved, haphazard fashion when you’re taking out four or five enemies.

Now it takes me about 10 or 15 attempts to take out the Asari. And you can never skip the cinematics that you have already seen. So you figure that each time you have to waste about two minutes watching a cinematic of an Asari being vomited out of the Thorian. How’s that for major league stupid? So, again, that scene took me about three hours to get through. And it’s one of five battles with a bunch of Asari clones and Thorian Creepers. This is just one example of the ridiculous tactical battles that you have to put up with to get from one cinematic to the next throughout Mass Effect.

I’ve made a sizable commitment of time to this one, but I haven’t come near finishing it. I went through the beginning scene at Eden Prime, wandered aimlessly through all of the different subplots within the Citadel headquarters space station. And made my way to Feros, where I fell into my own personal hell with the tactical game play quagmire.

People tell me that the story gets better. It does. I know because BioWare showed me a very key scene that was full of emotion as a character had to make a very tough choice about a personal friendship. That cinematic scene, when I saw it demoed to me, was riveting. But the game play is so flawed that it’s just not worth it to finish it. I feel like I have to move back several hours in the game play to get my characters in shape doing some other task while I forget about the mission at Feros for a while. That’s just not a viable option in a game this long. It’s like the game allowed me to make a choice that my characters just weren’t ready for.

I know a lot of purists out there say I should finish the game and then spout my opinions about it. But I can’t abide that. The Microsoft folks once told me that I had to finish Perfect Dark Zero because, they promised, “it gets better.” That was baloney. I’m sure that with Mass Effect, it’s true. But this ain’t my fight. If they had come up with Halo 3 game play and Mass Effect cinematics, it surely would be one of the greatest games ever made. But I felt as inept as Homer Simpson running around with a pea shooter in the midst of a melee. There is no excuse for this. I blame the game developers who put me in this losing position.

Maybe this game is just my Vietnam War of video games. I’m stuck in the middle. And I don’t think I’ll ever get out. It has beaten me. And you? If you’re into good game play as much as I am, you should forget about this one.
 
Top Bottom